Thursday, May 05, 2005

Jihad and the Crusades

Here is part II, in the two part series of articles discussing how Jihad probably begat the Crusades, and not vice versa, no matter what Ridley Scott says. If you want details, definitely read the whole two part article (you can get to part I by clicking here). However, the gist of it is here:

It is ahistorical and frankly absurd to separate the Crusades from the anti-Christian jihad wars that antedated and precipitated them. Four and one-half centuries of devastating jihad conquests (i.e., 632-1095 C.E.), and the cruel imposition of dhimmitude on the vanquished, primarily Christian populations, finally engendered a sustained, organized and violent response when Christendom perceived its very survival to be imperiled. Jacques Ellul has characterized the origins and effects of this transformation:

. . . the Crusade is an imitation of the jihad. Thus the Crusade includes a guarantee of salvation. The one who dies in holy war (i.e., jihad) goes straight to Paradise, and the same applies to the one who takes part in a Crusade. This is no coincidence; it is an exact equivalent. The Crusades, which were once admired as an expression of absolute faith, and which are now the subject of accusations against the Church and Christianity, are of Muslim, not Christian origin…The nonviolence of Jesus Christ changes into a war in conflict with that waged by the foe. Like that war, this is now a holy war.

The devastating Islamic institution of jihad must be acknowledged, renounced, dismantled, and relegated forever to the dustbin of history, by Muslims themselves. As Professor Walid Phares, in a frank, astute commentary entitled “Jihad is Jihad”, noted:

In the Christian world, modern Christians outlawed crusading; they did not rewrite history to legitimize themselves. Those who believe that the jihad holy war is a sin today must have the courage to de-legitimize it and outlaw it as well.